MoCo county exec thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jawando.

Glass only cares about rich people who can bike to work or eat vegan.

Jawando doesn’t want to build houses. Also Glass made the RideOn free, so maybe he doesn’t only care about bikers, he cares about our world not overheating.

Jawando does want to build houses. He just votes against nonsensical subsidies for $5k apartments and zoning plans that have no infrastructure or strategic vision to back them up. It’s ridiculous to paint him as anti-housing. The YIMBYs dislike him because he’s pro-consumer.

Not sure I quite agree with your framing of the issue here, my friend. MoCo is facing a housing affordability crisis — young people, teachers, and firefighters, among other crucial groups, are being priced out of the county — and the solution to a housing affordability crisis is to build more smart and affordable housing. That’s Econ 101, supply and demand. Now, does this mean promoting feckless, unsustainable, and unaffordable housing development every which way? Of course not. But it does mean supporting common-sense proposals like Bill 29-20 (which Jawando was one of two councilmembers to vote against) to build more affordable housing along transit corridors. I have concerns with Jawando’s track record on affordable housing.

DP. We don't agree on the approach suggested. The Econ 101 reference supplies more rhetorical support than robust, given complex issues at hand varied stakeholders and highly differential impacts.

Fair point, DP. But I think one could say the same about your claim that the “YIMBYs dislike [Jawando] because he’s pro-consumer.” Would you be willing to expand a little on what kind of approach you would support to the housing affordability crisis? The example provided in the post to which you most directly replied seems to be an example of Jawando rejecting an inoffensive, pragmatic suggestion to a problem that has been roiling the county for years. Track records should matter.

That DP to whom you replied. "DP" = different poster -- I did not make the claim mentioned, nor did I provide the cited example.

FWIW, I seem to agree with much of that with which another poster has responded in the interim, except the particular conclusion about Jawando and the minor Econ 101 ad hominem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jawando.

Glass only cares about rich people who can bike to work or eat vegan.

Jawando doesn’t want to build houses. Also Glass made the RideOn free, so maybe he doesn’t only care about bikers, he cares about our world not overheating.

Jawando does want to build houses. He just votes against nonsensical subsidies for $5k apartments and zoning plans that have no infrastructure or strategic vision to back them up. It’s ridiculous to paint him as anti-housing. The YIMBYs dislike him because he’s pro-consumer.

Not sure I quite agree with your framing of the issue here, my friend. MoCo is facing a housing affordability crisis — young people, teachers, and firefighters, among other crucial groups, are being priced out of the county — and the solution to a housing affordability crisis is to build more smart and affordable housing. That’s Econ 101, supply and demand. Now, does this mean promoting feckless, unsustainable, and unaffordable housing development every which way? Of course not. But it does mean supporting common-sense proposals like Bill 29-20 (which Jawando was one of two councilmembers to vote against) to build more affordable housing along transit corridors. I have concerns with Jawando’s track record on affordable housing.

DP. We don't agree on the approach suggested. The Econ 101 reference supplies more rhetorical support than robust, given complex issues at hand varied stakeholders and highly differential impacts.

Fair point, DP. But I think one could say the same about your claim that the “YIMBYs dislike [Jawando] because he’s pro-consumer.” Would you be willing to expand a little on what kind of approach you would support to the housing affordability crisis? The example provided in the post to which you most directly replied seems to be an example of Jawando rejecting an inoffensive, pragmatic suggestion to a problem that has been roiling the county for years. Track records should matter.

We need competition policy. That starts with going after price fixing and establishing modest rent stabilization (the second is done already; Friedson will probably prevent the first from moving through PHP because his donors make money from price fixing).

To add to those policies, we should revise the tax regime so that land speculation is really expensive. This should be done through targeted property tax measures and through recordation tax changes. All these things should be done in combination with permitting reforms, plan approval reforms, and targeted upzoning in residential neighborhoods close to metro stations. The various PILOTs should all be repealed because they just make land more expensive.

Bill 29-20 was nothing more than a bailout for Five Square, which subsequently donated more than $10k to Friedson. They made a bad land deal and claimed they couldn’t be profitable if they had to pay property taxes. When the county bails out developers who make bad deals, the county effectively props up land prices. Better to let the developer fail and have the building rights be repriced at market value at auction.

Moreover, bill 29-20 provided major benefits to the private developer but little public benefit. We got two eight-story towers with astronomical rents. To the extent the subsidy passed through to renters, it was only to renters around 200 percent AMI. We shouldn’t be subsidizing housing at that income level. Jawando was fiscally responsible and smart to oppose.

If you think housing is Econ 101, you either forgot Econ 101 or you didn’t take it.

Genuine question, is there causal (and not just associative) evidence that land speculation is increasing prices?

And what role do really high incomes play in the market, since MANY people can afford the high prices.

Additionally, it costs more to build these days, so builders have to recoup costs. And make a fair profit. I have no idea what type of profit they make, and perhaps they are gouging buyers for no reason other than they can. Or maybe it's the slow process to approve new housing developments -- the longer it takes, the more their financing costs them (and then us). Are there any studies on what new housing developments are providing in terms of profits for the homebuilders?

I truly don't know because I don't follow this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jawando.

Glass only cares about rich people who can bike to work or eat vegan.

Jawando doesn’t want to build houses. Also Glass made the RideOn free, so maybe he doesn’t only care about bikers, he cares about our world not overheating.

Jawando does want to build houses. He just votes against nonsensical subsidies for $5k apartments and zoning plans that have no infrastructure or strategic vision to back them up. It’s ridiculous to paint him as anti-housing. The YIMBYs dislike him because he’s pro-consumer.

Not sure I quite agree with your framing of the issue here, my friend. MoCo is facing a housing affordability crisis — young people, teachers, and firefighters, among other crucial groups, are being priced out of the county — and the solution to a housing affordability crisis is to build more smart and affordable housing. That’s Econ 101, supply and demand. Now, does this mean promoting feckless, unsustainable, and unaffordable housing development every which way? Of course not. But it does mean supporting common-sense proposals like Bill 29-20 (which Jawando was one of two councilmembers to vote against) to build more affordable housing along transit corridors. I have concerns with Jawando’s track record on affordable housing.

DP. We don't agree on the approach suggested. The Econ 101 reference supplies more rhetorical support than robust, given complex issues at hand varied stakeholders and highly differential impacts.

Fair point, DP. But I think one could say the same about your claim that the “YIMBYs dislike [Jawando] because he’s pro-consumer.” Would you be willing to expand a little on what kind of approach you would support to the housing affordability crisis? The example provided in the post to which you most directly replied seems to be an example of Jawando rejecting an inoffensive, pragmatic suggestion to a problem that has been roiling the county for years. Track records should matter.

We need competition policy. That starts with going after price fixing and establishing modest rent stabilization (the second is done already; Friedson will probably prevent the first from moving through PHP because his donors make money from price fixing).

To add to those policies, we should revise the tax regime so that land speculation is really expensive. This should be done through targeted property tax measures and through recordation tax changes. All these things should be done in combination with permitting reforms, plan approval reforms, and targeted upzoning in residential neighborhoods close to metro stations. The various PILOTs should all be repealed because they just make land more expensive.

Bill 29-20 was nothing more than a bailout for Five Square, which subsequently donated more than $10k to Friedson. They made a bad land deal and claimed they couldn’t be profitable if they had to pay property taxes. When the county bails out developers who make bad deals, the county effectively props up land prices. Better to let the developer fail and have the building rights be repriced at market value at auction.

Moreover, bill 29-20 provided major benefits to the private developer but little public benefit. We got two eight-story towers with astronomical rents. To the extent the subsidy passed through to renters, it was only to renters around 200 percent AMI. We shouldn’t be subsidizing housing at that income level. Jawando was fiscally responsible and smart to oppose.

If you think housing is Econ 101, you either forgot Econ 101 or you didn’t take it.

Genuine question, is there causal (and not just associative) evidence that land speculation is increasing prices?

And what role do really high incomes play in the market, since MANY people can afford the high prices.

Additionally, it costs more to build these days, so builders have to recoup costs. And make a fair profit. I have no idea what type of profit they make, and perhaps they are gouging buyers for no reason other than they can. Or maybe it's the slow process to approve new housing developments -- the longer it takes, the more their financing costs them (and then us). Are there any studies on what new housing developments are providing in terms of profits for the homebuilders?

I truly don't know because I don't follow this.

There are plenty of academic papers on speculation’s role in driving up housing prices. For example: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscape/vol26num1/ch8.pdf.

The biggest problem with Friedson’s PILOTs is that they’ve effectively provided insurance for land speculators. Making housing more affordable requires a market adjustment. If land prices stay high, the market won’t adjust because of the profit realities that you describe above. When tax policy bails out people who paid too much for land or who held onto land too long, the market won’t adjust.

Gross margins for publicly traded residential real estate firms have been running 50 to 60 percent the past few years. Private firms’ margins probably are similar or perhaps even a bit higher. Otherwise, they’d be starved for capital.

The biggest barrier to accelerating housing production is the developers themselves. They trickle units onto the market to create scarcity and keep prices high. For decades, the pipeline of approved projects has been more than deep enough to meet demand. During that time, effective rents have increased 2.1 percent a year on average. If the market had delivered more units, prices would be lower.

[Anonymous]

Well Jawando just got shredded by his fellow councilmembers for treating them like *^%# on the Unmask Ice bill. He called for it to be scheduled next week, leapfrogging a committee meeting on it, and drew the ire of almost all the councilmembers. A couple were crying they were so mad. Said he never once reached out to any of them to discuss the bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friedsen is the closest thing to a moderate.

Yes the developers have him in their pocket, but of the 3 candidates he is the most likely to be "not terrible" and maybe even an improvement on Elrich (who actually announced he wanted ANOTHER 6% property tax hike over the weekend!!)

Friedson is not a moderate. He will do anything that advances the interests of those you note for whom he works.

Jawando is not a moderate. He will do anything that advances his own political career.

Glass is not a moderate. He will do anything that supports his ideology.

Pick your poison.

Best Summary... all are bad choices.

[Anonymous]

Why would anyone want to get a low paying job in the government like this? Unless they see it as a stepping stone? Like Alsobrook who became a fed senator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone want to get a low paying job in the government like this? Unless they see it as a stepping stone? Like Alsobrook who became a fed senator.

Low relative to...? It's not small, and nothing like the pittance given to the BOE.

There are considerable fringe benefits, and you get to install friends/cronies in all kinds of positions where, even if the pay is not astronomical, it's reasonably good, with fringe benefits of their own (both proper and, with incidence depending on the nature of the office holder, improper).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well Jawando just got shredded by his fellow councilmembers for treating them like *^%# on the Unmask Ice bill. He called for it to be scheduled next week, leapfrogging a committee meeting on it, and drew the ire of almost all the councilmembers. A couple were crying they were so mad. Said he never once reached out to any of them to discuss the bill.

The committee chair was dragging his feet on scheduling the work session. Three of his colleagues voted with him to advance the bill. Some people have principles, and some people are cowards who want to avoid difficult votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well Jawando just got shredded by his fellow councilmembers for treating them like *^%# on the Unmask Ice bill. He called for it to be scheduled next week, leapfrogging a committee meeting on it, and drew the ire of almost all the councilmembers. A couple were crying they were so mad. Said he never once reached out to any of them to discuss the bill.

The committee chair was dragging his feet on scheduling the work session. Three of his colleagues voted with him to advance the bill. Some people have principles, and some people are cowards who want to avoid difficult votes.

No he wasn't. He wisely wanted to see what the Maryland General Assembly was doing on their REAL bill that has teeth. You know, actual enforcement mechanisms and penalties. And that bill would apply to all law enforcement. Not just MCPD, which is the only police department the county can regulate. The county can't regulate Rockville police or Takoma park police or Gaithersburg police. They certainly cannot regulate federal police.

This bill will just result in a bunch of people calling 911 and the operators telling them there's nothing anyone can do about it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well Jawando just got shredded by his fellow councilmembers for treating them like *^%# on the Unmask Ice bill. He called for it to be scheduled next week, leapfrogging a committee meeting on it, and drew the ire of almost all the councilmembers. A couple were crying they were so mad. Said he never once reached out to any of them to discuss the bill.

The committee chair was dragging his feet on scheduling the work session. Three of his colleagues voted with him to advance the bill. Some people have principles, and some people are cowards who want to avoid difficult votes.

DP
Do you think they stand to lose support politically by voting for the bill and that's why they are delaying it? That doesn't make sense to me.

The county has the legal authority to regulate its own police force. The state has more authority. It makes more sense to do this right. ICE has been terrorizing people for over a year. Passing a toothless bill now versus in a month makes no difference.

[Anonymous]

They are all aholes. Friedson and Glass will build more housing than Jawando. Jawando will be like Elrich - pushing performative and wasteful progressive priorities while supporting nimbyism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Glass all the way, Friedson is bought and paid for and Jawando is an Elrich wannabe. Glass is endorsed by Sierra Club also. Also two way race between Jawando and Glass.

Ugh! I will not vote for anyone endorsed and bought and paid for by the Sierra Club!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone want to get a low paying job in the government like this? Unless they see it as a stepping stone? Like Alsobrook who became a fed senator.

The county exec makes close to $210k, more than US representatives and senators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glass all the way, Friedson is bought and paid for and Jawando is an Elrich wannabe. Glass is endorsed by Sierra Club also. Also two way race between Jawando and Glass.

Ugh! I will not vote for anyone endorsed and bought and paid for by the Sierra Club!!!!

Oh no! Supporting the environment???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jawando.

Glass only cares about rich people who can bike to work or eat vegan.

Jawando doesn’t want to build houses. Also Glass made the RideOn free, so maybe he doesn’t only care about bikers, he cares about our world not overheating.

Jawando does want to build houses. He just votes against nonsensical subsidies for $5k apartments and zoning plans that have no infrastructure or strategic vision to back them up. It’s ridiculous to paint him as anti-housing. The YIMBYs dislike him because he’s pro-consumer.

Not sure I quite agree with your framing of the issue here, my friend. MoCo is facing a housing affordability crisis — young people, teachers, and firefighters, among other crucial groups, are being priced out of the county — and the solution to a housing affordability crisis is to build more smart and affordable housing. That’s Econ 101, supply and demand. Now, does this mean promoting feckless, unsustainable, and unaffordable housing development every which way? Of course not. But it does mean supporting common-sense proposals like Bill 29-20 (which Jawando was one of two councilmembers to vote against) to build more affordable housing along transit corridors. I have concerns with Jawando’s track record on affordable housing.

DP. We don't agree on the approach suggested. The Econ 101 reference supplies more rhetorical support than robust, given complex issues at hand varied stakeholders and highly differential impacts.

Fair point, DP. But I think one could say the same about your claim that the “YIMBYs dislike [Jawando] because he’s pro-consumer.” Would you be willing to expand a little on what kind of approach you would support to the housing affordability crisis? The example provided in the post to which you most directly replied seems to be an example of Jawando rejecting an inoffensive, pragmatic suggestion to a problem that has been roiling the county for years. Track records should matter.

That DP to whom you replied. "DP" = different poster -- I did not make the claim mentioned, nor did I provide the cited example.

FWIW, I seem to agree with much of that with which another poster has responded in the interim, except the particular conclusion about Jawando and the minor Econ 101 ad hominem.

Which poster? The pro-Jawando one or the other pro-housing one?